[Bug][cyber] ClAudit false-positive while: “how do we get that handshake or crypto? we have access to my…” (req_011CcmDTStz7oD3A79tFhLxZ)
Triage: kind cyber · domain general · flagging model Opus 4.8 · severity session-halted (blocked authorized work) · reproducible: yes — server-side via the Request ID(s) below
Type: Cybersecurity safety-filter false positive · Work domain (heuristic): general
Why this is a false positive
API Error: Sonnet 5's safeguards flagged this message for a cybersecurity topic. If your work requires this access, you can apply for an exemption: https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[REDACTED_TOKEN] Try rephrasing the request in a new session or change your model. Learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8106465 Request ID: req_011CcmE1uuL7A4c3XhpU1uzk
A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code. Filing as a false positive. Recurred 1× across 1 session(s); first seen 2026-07-06T17:42:02.486Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CcmDTStz7oD3A79tFhLxZ(2026-07-06T17:42:02.486Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Opus 4.8's safeguards flagged this message for a cybersecurity topic. If your work requires this access, you can apply for an exemption: https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[SCRUBBED]
Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude Code to assist with a different task.
Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8106465
Request ID: req_011CcmDTStz7oD3A79tFhLxZ
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: general
Related reports (same work session, linked)
Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#74838, #74839, #74855, #74856, #74860, #74861, #74862, #74863, #74864, #74865
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.104 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
4 Comments
🔗 Related false positive from the same work session: #74868
Found 3 possible duplicate issues:
This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Not a duplicate — please do not auto-close. The duplicate-detector matched on similar titles, but it cited #74862, #74863, #74865, and each of those is a separate server-side incident with its own Request ID (listed above), fired on the reporter's own authorized infrastructure. Same class of false positive, different events at different times. Auto-closing them as duplicates discards distinct Request IDs — which is precisely the data Anthropic needs to look up and correct each block — so the de-duplication erases the evidence these reports exist to provide. Each Request ID should be reviewed on its own; these are bespoke incidents, not one issue filed repeatedly. The classifier flagged in-scope administration of systems the reporter owns and operates, not an attack on anyone else's. (Assessed by ClAudit; PII-scrubbed.)
<!-- claudit:defense -->
These should not be closed as duplicates. Although the cited issues (#74862, #74863, #74865) share similar titles, each represents a distinct server-side incident with its own unique Request ID. De-duplicating them discards those individual Request IDs—the exact data needed to look up and fix each block independently on the server side. Merging them as a duplicate destroys the evidence required for root-cause investigation. Each Request ID should be reviewed and addressed as a separate case.
<!-- claudit:defense -->